JayC

Any violation of 1351 can lead to TDOS revoking your permit for life.  Under the same section of the law they used to get Yeager and Voldemort.   You'd be correct the police likely couldn't do anything about it....  but if they complained past experience says TDOS would.   Also remember you only must display your permit, you're not required to give custody of the permit to any police officer, nor can they take your permit from your possession under state law.  

Ok I'll take the bait...  The reason that this incident could rise the the level of tyranny is the arbitrary nature of the actions taken by the police officer.  Lets say that the law was constitutional (I don't grant you that argument), and that the behavior of the officer in question was legal and constitutional (again I don't concede this point either)...     You still have the problem of unequal enforcement of the law...  If the officer and the city in question were enforcing the law equally then you'd might be correct that the actions weren't tyrannical... but in this case it's clear the sign was targeted because it contained political speech that was against the state.  Other items which also violate the same ordinance on the same street have not been taken, that by it's very nature is arbitrary.   I'd also say that the enforcement of this ordinance in this case is unreasonable in nature, as well, since it acts as a priority restraint on political speech.   If either are true by your very own definition the acts are tyrannical in nature.    

Which is why we need criminal penalties for government employees who knowingly violate state law...  She would issue it, or a judge would order her to issue it.   And after 1 judge ruling that they had to issue it, they would start doing it for everybody.    

You want to talk to the guys over at the TBI.   Having worked with the TBI on a number of cases, and interviewed a number of their folks looking to move to the private sector - I ran the team for a local fortune 100 company that did computer incident response and forensics for the entire company worldwide for a number of years.   The truth is you're likely going to be disappointed in the information you get from the TBI, they have software program X and they are certified in it's use and anything beyond running that software is 'magic' to them.     The sad fact is I've worked with a number of state and local law enforcement entities over the years and there just aren't very many top notch guys working there...  Often times when we had to handle a criminal incident, we ended up collecting the evidence for the responding agency because they're 'investigators' often times didn't have the technically experience to collect data beyond a desktop computer.   Good computer forensics guys are in high demand, I took my SANS Forensics course years ago out in San Diego and finished the 'practical' on the last day first, before I could get to my rental car that day I had 4 different business cards from recruiters in my hand and another trying to catch me before I could drive off with a job offer ;)   If you wanted to some insights on how private businesses are doing computer forensics and interfacing with law enforcement in the real world I'd be happy to help.  

In all fairness, the House republicans have not passed a balanced budget or anything that even kinda looks like a balanced budget.   The establishment republican party is on the exact same road as the democratic party, they're just doing the speed limit instead :)    

TDOS must issue a permit within 90 days, there are no exceptions for not getting information back from a certain party.  Even if NICS went down, they would be required to issue the permit based on the information in front of them.   Our often mistaken governor doesn't know what he is talking about.

Waste of time, TFA has a much better track record.  

As for pre-emption, remove all exceptions for local pre-emption of state law (even those passed before 1986).    Remove 39-17-1352a3 or at the very least require a non-ex-parte hearing before a circuit court judge before being able to revoke or suspend a permit.  It would be nice to require a hearing for all revocations and suspensions to require a hearing.   Criminal penalties for any person intentionally violating 39-17-1351l.   Place the burden of proof on TDOS for denials under 39-17-1351i instead of on the person making application.   Amending 39-17-1351g+h to prohibit the sharing of any fingerprint records with any other state, local, or federal agency unless there is a court order for that specific persons records.   Amending 39-17-1359a1 to remove the words "or local, state, or federal entity" :)   Add to 39-17-1359c1 the word knowingly.

Everybody can buy insurance from the exchanges, but if your employer offers health insurance that costs less than 9% of your income then you get no subsidy to help you pay for the insurance.    

You keep confusing 2 different terms, there is a ordinance that on public right of ways you can't post signs in Murfreesboro...  And most people have a right of way easement that includes some of their property...  But just because you have an easement running 10-15 feet into your front yard that someday could be turned into a road doesn't mean the property today is owned by the city or is today part of the right of way.   I don't have an issue with a law prohibiting putting signs on the public right of way (ie a road, railroad, foot trail etc) that is owned and maintained by the city.  But that isn't what's going on here...  while the city may very well have an easement to turn some of your front yard into a road it doesn't mean they own the land today, nor can they rip up your fence, mailbox, or for sale sign without a court order because until they convert the easement into a road the property belongs to you.   Lets pretend for a second that the city owns the land on which this sign sat, or had some ordinance that allowed them to remove a sign from an unused easement...  and the city only targeted signs which were Pro-2nd Amendment in nature but did not equally enforce the law on other signs, or fences, mailboxes, or anything else that then that would be a clear violation of the constitution's equal protection clause.   And you keep skipping over the fact the building inspector who the NY town law says is the government entity that enforces these code violations told the homeowner  he could keep the sign as it was protected speech...     So explain to me again how you have a police officer enforcing building code violations that aren't under the purview of his department?    

Except in this case, by the law the building inspector and his office was the only ones allowed to enforce these codes, not the police department.  Also the home owner and his attorney claim the building inspector had approved this sign as exempt from the ordinance in question before any of the signs were taken.   The way the town is trying to defend this, is by saying the sign was abandoned property left on town owned land and as such they had no duty to seek a order, or notify the property owner they took the sign.  Which is a joke under the best of circumstances.    

And in TN if a city wanted to enforce those easements, they'd have to go to court and get an order to do so.  Because the property still belongs to you, not the city that has the easement.  And we all have things sitting in our easements...  driveways, mail boxes, for sale signs, etc...  The easement is not a complete one...  So if there is a question you can have a day in court before anything is done to your property to make an argument that either the easement doesn't apply, or the improves don't violate the easement.   And that is the 'novel' part of their argument, they're claiming ownership of the land that is in the easement to say they didn't need permission from the court to remove property with no notice to the land owner.   Please tell me you see how crazy this argument the city is making is?  They're claiming complete ownership of all property in the city that sit on the easement, and can do whatever they want to that property without affording you due process of law.    

The 'logic' the town is using to claim that this is 'town' property is a stretch under the best situations.  They're trying to claim since th sign was on property owned by this individual but in the 'easement' for the town, that the sign was on public property.   That is to say the least a novel approach to claiming the property belongs to the 'town'.  I don't know NY law but that wouldn't fly 5 inches here in TN...  while we all have public easements and right of ways on our property for things such as telephone poles, sidewalks, roads, etc.  The property is still owned by you not the city or county...  You're just restricted with what you can do to your property on the easement...  any improvements which would prevent the maintenance or installation of new public works on the easement can be restricted and you can be forced to remove them....   Clearly a sign of this size poses no issue to the easement unless they had scheduled maintenance requiring it to be moved.   And here is how you know the town is full of it...  there are houses on that street that have fences much closer to the road than where the sign sat...  so is the city now saying those fences are on it's property?    

I personally am I lot more interested in his primary school education.  The school he attended while living with his step father required that all students be citizens of Indonesia...  Indonesia law prohibited dual citizenship at the time, so Obama would have had to renounce his US citizenship to gain Indonesian citizenship.   Also, it's be curious to see what passport he used to travel to Pakistan in the 1980's.     

I've never called for a revolt, or suggested having one would be a good thing, or lead to good results...  Only my opinion that one is probably coming, and it will be the other side of the political spectrum that likely starts it.  If that revolt happens it will likely be the result of a currency crisis or brought on by the end of the US Dollar as the worlds reserve currency - which would likely trigger a currency crisis.   I think your description of the likely outcome is about spot on, and that we likely would see many different forms of tyrannical governments grow out of what was once the US.   I have a slim hope that freedom and liberty will take hold in such an aftermath and we might see people who want to return to true individual freedom, but that is a slim hope at best.  Although I feel the best way to do that is to educate and open the eyes of small government conservatives to those ideas now, because it will be way too late by the time we see bad stuff happen.   Trust me if I thought there was a likely positive outcome for freedom and liberty, I'd already be out there causing problems, not talking about it on here ;)    

BTW, the attorney in this case seems to be a sharp civil rights attorney.  He's one of the attorney's on the Tresmond v NY State lawsuit which is fighting the constitutionality of the SAFE Act.   And it seems he may have been involved in this before the signs were "removed" when the homeowner received a letter from the building inspector which it seems the building inspector agreed the signs were not in violation of the law.

Well I cheated on the attorney thing...  The attorney gave an interview where he said they were in the process of researching how often this law was enforced, and if there are other violations which aren't political speech that weren't being enforced :)   So not perfect knowledge, just reading a statement from the attorney in a news report :)   I'm making the assumption that will include deposing the officer in question and his official reports to see when else he had enforced this city code.   BTW, something that has come to light over on the NY firearm forum...  it seems this town code is under the authority of the building inspectors office, not the police department.     So even if this was a valid violation of the city ordinance, it's not the responsibility of the police department to enforce the ordinance :)   So how exactly does this look like a 'legal' action to you?  

Who cares about the upset neighbor...  neighbors can whine and moan all they want...  it's when a government official shows up, tears down your property and steals it that we should be worried :)   It's even more concerning because the property in question was a sign with political speech on it.  

Rumor has it Cabelas is next, they're supposed to go before the planning commission next month to build a store next to Two River's Ford....  or so a little birdie told me last week.

I can't answer the question on the expo center...  but here is a great cheat sheet on KY carry laws:   http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf

I don't agree with the wiki article, if you want a laugh go back and reread all the pro/anti-obama stuff on the edits page...  I believe I understand what the meaning of the words 'natural born citizen' meant in the 1790's when the framers wrote the constitution and it means Cruz, Obama, Rubio, and possible McCain are ineligible to be President.  You may disagree with my understanding of historical facts, I'm not trying to convince you not to vote for Cruz, only if you have issues with Obama's issues with citizenship, then Cruz is in a much worse position.   And yes, being born in another country is the exactly what the framers were talking about in the Federalist papers when discussing the needs for these protections in the Constitution.  The entire point was not to have a foreign born President like what could happen in England at the time with the King.   You have to make up your mind for yourself, but I have issues with Obama's qualifications as a natural born citizen and therefore can't in good conscience vote for Cruz because of the exact same issue.  And trust me it hurts, because I'd like to be able to vote for the guy :)  

Robert,   We've had this argument before...  This is settled case law...  signs with political speech are protected with a strict scrutiny standard, if he was in violation of a city ordinance, it was a clearly unconstitutional city ordinance per the case I bothered to lookup and cite.   Even if he was in violation of a valid city ordinance, there would have to be a HEARING before a judge or magistrate to order him to take the sign down.  Normally in most cities such actions happen as the result of a citation that is provided to the homeowner, but there would have to be some notification.  Clearly that didn't happen here - from statements from the police department in question.   Even if the sign was in violation of a valid city ordinance, and they had a legal order to take the sign down, they still don't have the right to steal his signs with no documentation provided to the owner as to where he can collect said sign.   And finally, the first thing his attorney is going to do is find out how many other signs this officer has taken under this city ordinance over the last couple of months, what do you think the chances are it's only these 4 signs?  I'd be willing to bet a six pack of beer we'll find out it's 4 signs :)   Communities have to follow the rule of law, a community can't take your property without due process of law...  which means they must notify you that you're in violation in writing, offer you a chance to argue your case before a neutral third party on how you're not in violation, and receive a documented order or judgement with which to comply.     There is no way to paint this case as anything other than a criminal and unconstitutional act.    

It won't matter if it's violating city code or not, political speech is even more protected than regular speech under current SCOTUS rulings.   Ladue v. Gilleo 1994 I believe would be on point, where signs on residential property were banned under City ordinance.  The court struck down the ordinance when it was used against war protest signs.  Unless they can show the sign somehow was a danger to the public (cause a blind spot between oncoming traffic or something).   More importantly, while the officer might have been able to order the sign be taken down, the officer for sure can't take anothers persons property under a city ordinance without due process of law, which would have required a hearing that the signs owner would have to been notified about ahead of time.   So the stealing for 4 signs is clearly a violation of the law, even if the signs were somehow in violation of a city ordinance.   I'm also willing to bet department policy is they are to provide written receipts for any confiscated property, so it's likely the officer also violated department policy as well.     

The police department has admitted to the media they took the sign all 4 times without leaving any paperwork, or documentation for the owner.  At the end of the day it seems the department violated the law and the constitution.   This is a very serious issue, while the sign might have been about the 2nd amendment, the violation is going to be a clear 1st amendment one.  People should end up in jail over this.

I don't think you need a moral democrat for that statement to kick in...  just mix in a good amount of self preservation :)   If you're looking at a tough race next year, do you really want to me on recording for voting against you having to live under the same law as your voters?  Do you really want to be seen as willing to shutdown the government to keep that from happening?   Democrats are a lot of things, dumb isn't one of them...  That is going to cost you votes, a lot of votes...  if you're in a tight race to begin with, you don't do things that will cost you a lot of votes.